African-American Youth in The Juvenile Justice System

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS THE CENTRALITY OF DISPARITY AT THE POINT OF ARREST TO COMMITMENT DISPARITIES Racial and ethnic disparities are a pervasive attribute of the juvenile justice system. Along with disparities in which youth get transferred to the adult system, commitments are the residue of disparities that grow at each stage of the justice system. There are sharp limitations to this level of analysis: while the National Disproportionate Minority Contact Databook 16 aggregates data for AfricanAmerican youth, white youth, Asian youth and American Indian youth, there are no Hispanic-specific data for disparities at points of contact other than pre- and postadjudication placements. Moreover, the black/white disparity is probably understated. Because most Hispanic youth are white, Hispanic youth in contact with the justice system are mostly categorized as white, increasing the number of white youth and artificially decreasing the disparity between white and black youth. While disparities in arrests have grown increased, the data also reveal the existence of disparities at other points of contact with the juvenile justice system (see Table 3). Black youth are more likely to be arrested, and are then treated with disproportionate harshness as they go deeper into the juvenile justice system. The 2013 disparities, shown in Table 3, look largely similar to the 2003 disparities with two exceptions: arrests and the decision to commit. • In 2013, AfricanAmerican youth were 129 percent more likely to be arrested than white youth. That reflects an increase from 2003, when AfricanAmerican youth were 85 percent more likely to be arrested than white youth. • Among youth adjudicated delinquent, black youth were 19 percent more likely to be committed – an increase from the 13 percent disparity in 2003. The pattern is clear: while disparities pervade the juvenile justice system, it is the disparities at the front of the system – arrests – are both where disparities are largest and the point at the system at which disparities grew between 2003 and 2013. Table 3. Youth Outcomes by Race, 2013 Black juveniles White juveniles Out of every 10,000 teenagers 738 arrests 322 arrests Out of every 1,000 arrests Out of every 1,000 arrests 934 referrals to juvenile court 217 diverted away from formal court processing 806 cases referrals to juvenile court 298 diverted away from formal court processing Out of every 1,000 cases referred to juvenile court Out of every 1,000 cases tried in juvenile court Out of every 1,000 juveniles adjudicated delinquent Out of every 1,000 juveniles adjudicated delinquent 249 detained prior to adjudication 186 detained prior to adjudication 511 adjudicated delinquent 518 adjudicated delinquent 611 received probation 648 received probation 272 commitments 228 commitments The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org 8

POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN YOUTH COMMITMENTS AND ARRESTS CONCLUSION The existence of racial and ethnic disparities is a disturbing feature of the juvenile justice system. Over the 10-year period in this report, disparities for AfricanAmerican youth and American Indian youth have grown even as overall indicators, such as total arrests and the total numbers of youth in placement, have fallen. These trends suggest that the successful reforms that have led to fewer overall arrests and fewer commitments have not been shared equally among all youth and, in fact, are benefiting white youth the most. Further study is needed to discern the extent to which growing arrest disparities reflect disparate treatment of youth of color within localities or whether they reflect changing standards in different geographic regions within a state. Racially and ethnicity segregated housing mean that, in most states, youth of color are concentrated in cities and inner suburbs while white youth are more likely to live in suburbs and rural areas. As such, an increased racial disparity might reflect sharply decreased arrests in rural counties and a smaller decrease in urbanized counties. What is clear, however, is that states should not ignore the ways that disparate arrest rates impact the deep end of the system. Along with policing reform to respond to youthful behavioral issues without relying on high levels of arrests of youth of color, other actors in the juvenile justice system can decrease racial disparities in commitments. Prosecutors’ and judges’ decisions have not caused the increase in commitment disparities, but they also have not mitigated them. The public and policymakers can celebrate the sharp drops in overall juvenile incarceration and a falling arrest rate. However, it is clear that these changes are not impacting communities of color at the same pace as white communities. ENDNOTES 1 Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2015). “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.” Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ ojstatbb/ezacjrp/ 2 The District of Columbia’s commitment rate increased during these ten years. 3 Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2015). “Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2014.” Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/. Juveniles are between 10 and 17 years of age. 4 The remaining commitments were Hispanic, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, and other. 5 Calculations on racial and ethnic disparities are derived from data provided by the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention on a nationwide and statewide level. This report does not attempt to show county-bycounty differences in commitments and arrests, an important issue to explore. As states vary in their racial and ethnic disparities, so too do regions within states. 6 For example, New Hampshire’s AfricanAmerican commitment rate (1,846 per 100,000 AfricanAmerican juveniles) is derived from just 21 committed juveniles who were AfricanAmerican. 7 Data accuracy for Hispanic juveniles is considered to have improved over time, but some caution is warranted. 8 In 1992, this law was expanded to require that measurements of disparity be taken at all points of contact in the system rather than just the point of confinement. 9 Puzzanchera, C. and Hockenberry, S. (2015). 10 Lauritsen, J.L. (2005). Racial and ethnic differences in juvenile offending. In D.F. Hawkins and K. Kempf-Leonard (Eds.), Our Children, Their Children: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Differences inJuvenileJustice (pp. 83-104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Available at: www.cdc.gov/yrbs. Accessed on January 26, 2016. 12 Lauritsen, J.L. (2005). 13 OJJDP data for Hispanic commitments in New Mexico in 2003 may be in error. The 2003 New Mexico disparity is based on the author’s calculation on the assumption that New Mexico’s Hispanic youth were miscategorized as “other” in the 2003 data set. 14 Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2015). “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.” Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ ojstatbb/ezacjrp/ 15 Puzzanchera, C. and Hockenberry, S. (2015). 16 Puzzanchera, C. and Hockenberry, S. (2015). The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org 9